Bennet: Medicare for all supporters need to be honest with the people

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
13,029
14,646
Work
#11
What isn't misunderstood is more government involvement in personal healthcare decisions. I'll pass on that.
How would government have more involvement than private for-profit companies already do? It sounds like you don't have a problem with a private company having the power to accept or deny your claim, or with claims adjusters having incentives to find reasons to deny claims? Often it's a part time job just to get insurance companies to pay things that are plainly laid out in the terms of the policy.

Why don't you have a problem with for profit middleman companies being involved in your health care decisions? Shouldn't that decision be left to you and your doctor?
 
Likes: labrea
Feb 2011
16,843
5,999
Boise, ID
#12
True. The US could devise a public health insurance for all program that costs far more than any other country with a similar national health insurance plan.
It would have to cost far more than any other country, because our health care already carries these higher prices. If implementing single payer caused our health care to cost similar to other nations, it would have to be because our new system makes Draconian reductions to benefit levels (which it couldn't realistically do or everyone would reject it).

Cost is only one important consideration though. There are numerous others.
 
Apr 2018
11,824
3,053
oregon
#13
How would government have more involvement than private for-profit companies already do?
I didn't say they would.
It sounds like you don't have a problem with a private company having the power to accept or deny your claim, or with claims adjusters having incentives to find reasons to deny claims? Often it's a part time job just to get insurance companies to pay things that are plainly laid out in the terms of the policy.
An insurance policy is a contract. If a procedure is covered, it is covered. If not, the insurance company shouldn't cover it.

Why don't you have a problem with for profit middleman companies being involved in your health care decisions? Shouldn't that decision be left to you and your doctor?
I have a problem with being forced into purchasing insurance, via mandate or taxation. Insurance companies don't have that power, government does. I also have a problem with the government telling me I cannot purchase the insurance plan I desire, a catastrophic only plan. And lastly, I have zero desire to give an entity that is well over $20 trillion in debt any more responsibility to manage anything.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the government can come up with a plan good enough that participation is voluntary, in both benefits and funding, I will gladly join. If it's mandated, it's just another version of this:
socialism.jpg
 
May 2012
68,328
13,596
By the wall
#14
You'll have to ask your insurance company. That's up to them. You have no power, and never have had any power to "keep your plan" if the insurance company decides to scrap it.
Why would they decide to scrap it if not for some stupid government program?

They wouldn't.
 
Feb 2011
17,922
12,538
The formerly great golden state
#15
Sen. Michael Bennet suggested Monday that the “Medicare for All” proposals touted by many of his Democratic primary opponents may not be as popular as they seem, telling CNN that candidates should "be honest" with voters about the realities of such health care policies.

“When you tell people the first thing about Medicare for All — either that it takes insurance away from 180 million Americans that have it through their employer or the taxes we would have to pay to afford that $30 trillion program — that 70 percent support falls to the mid-30s,” Bennet said on CNN's "New Day." “I think we need to level with the American people.”

Instead of a Medicare for All health care plan, the Colorado senator touted the “Medicare X” proposal he and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) rolled out last month that would allow for a public health care option, modeled after Medicaid, to be made available alongside private insurance. The proposal “allows people to choose for their families what's best for them in terms of insurance and in terms of primary care,” Bennet said.

Bennet: Medicare for All supporters 'need to level with the American people'

The problem with those scary numbers is that they are assuming that the medicare for all costs would be in addition to, rather than instead of, the billions currently going to private insurance companies.
 
Likes: labrea

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
13,029
14,646
Work
#16
Why would they decide to scrap it if not for some stupid government program?

They wouldn't.
Long before there was an ACA, my policy changed nearly every year. Pencil pushers looking to save money here and there are always tinkering with what is covered and what isn’t. People act like policies were graven in stone until Obama came along.

Ridiculous.
 
Likes: labrea

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
13,029
14,646
Work
#17
I didn't say they would.
An insurance policy is a contract. If a procedure is covered, it is covered. If not, the insurance company shouldn't cover it.

I have a problem with being forced into purchasing insurance, via mandate or taxation. Insurance companies don't have that power, government does. I also have a problem with the government telling me I cannot purchase the insurance plan I desire, a catastrophic only plan. And lastly, I have zero desire to give an entity that is well over $20 trillion in debt any more responsibility to manage anything.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If the government can come up with a plan good enough that participation is voluntary, in both benefits and funding, I will gladly join. If it's mandated, it's just another version of this:
View attachment 23972
That’s a fair point, but I’m not asking for private insurance companies to be banned. Just neutered. A public option would do that, and I think would he a huge boon to small businesses. People who insist on risking financial ruin by abstaining from insurance are welcome to do so, and even welcome to come crying to the nanny state when they are bankrupt.

You don’t believe there is a social contract between people and the government?
 
Apr 2018
11,824
3,053
oregon
#19
That’s a fair point, but I’m not asking for private insurance companies to be banned. Just neutered.
They are neutered by the fact that you are free to not do business with them. Trump neutered them when he killed the individual mandate.
A public option would do that, and I think would he a huge boon to small businesses.
As long as said "public option" is wholly funded by user fees, I've got no problem with it. I might even willingly join if it's done well.
People who insist on risking financial ruin by abstaining from insurance are welcome to do so,
As it should be in a free country.
and even welcome to come crying to the nanny state when they are bankrupt.
And they should be denied. It's not the state's responsibility to bail them out from a gambling loss.
You don’t believe there is a social contract between people and the government?
I don't believe in contracts that aren't specifically defined and willingly signed by both parties.
 
Sep 2013
44,996
36,086
On a hill
#20
How would government have more involvement than private for-profit companies already do? It sounds like you don't have a problem with a private company having the power to accept or deny your claim, or with claims adjusters having incentives to find reasons to deny claims? Often it's a part time job just to get insurance companies to pay things that are plainly laid out in the terms of the policy.

Why don't you have a problem with for profit middleman companies being involved in your health care decisions? Shouldn't that decision be left to you and your doctor?
Actually its two middlemen - your employer deciding what insurance provider, and what your coverage is, and the provider deciding what health care providers you my use.
 
Likes: StanStill

Similar Discussions